Originally posted by x_fiend
I have recently discovered a true Gem..Civ 2..
I ran out like an idiot an bought Civ 3,because "It must be great,Sid Meier's name is on it"..I am a newbie to both games,
so I am able to give a somewhat objective opinion..
Objective, because you didn't have any preconceived notions about it, like some people who think "It must be great, Sid Meier's name is on it"?
Never played any Civ games, but bought it because of Sid? Were you expecting something like Roller Coaster Tycoon?
Originally posted by x_fiend
Well my opinion is that Civ 3 has better graphics and more options
such as culture,but the overall effect is far inferior to my experiences with Civ 2..Maybe I'm not an advanced strategist,but
It was inferior to your vast experiences with never having played Civ2 before?
Originally posted by x_fiend
I can tell which game appeals to me more,which one draws me in more..
That game is Civ 2..
Which one did you run out and buy soon after it came out just because it had Sid's name on it? What do you mean by "appeals to me" or "draws me in"?
Originally posted by x_fiend
I feel like they were trying to make some money off a well known,well marketed product.Similar in the way the Rocky movie franchise developed..I also believe that there are probably some who are afraid to admit that they wasted $50 on a bad game,and are therefore compelled to justify their purchase.
Of course they wanted to make money off a well known, well marketed product. What's wrong with that? I believe there are definitely some people who freely admit they wasted $50 on a game that wasn't what they expected and are afraid that they're in the minority, so they feel compelled to try to convince others that it's a bad game just because they personally don't like it.
Originally posted by x_fiend
In my experience,sequels generally suck..This is no exception..I will admit ,were I able to beat Civ 3 a game or two my opinion might be different..However,I simply don't feel like investing the time to do that..Hopefully Heroes of Might and Magic 4 will be a worthy sequel..I think I will trade off Civ 3 at EB and find out..
Umm, ... wasn't Civ2 a sequel?
I support your decision, though. If Civ3 isn't for you, trade it in on another game that you'll like better and won't have to spend time on. But if your experience tells you sequels generally suck, you might want to pick something that doesn't have "4" in its title.
Originally posted by x_fiend
My Top 3 games based on addictiveness factor:
3)Civ 2
2) HOMM 3
1)Counterstrike
I'm out,
So you never played any Civ games before, your favorite games are Heroes of Might and Magic and Counterstroke, and you were compelled to run out and buy Civ3 simply because it had Sid's name on it? Have you ever played any of Sid's games? Did you know what to expect from one? Maybe I'm missing something, but it just doesn't add up from where I'm sitting.